Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
You realize you are saying that with two equally qualified individuals, if one is a women she will be the better choice because she is a women.
Having more women CEOs won't make society better like you are implying. It will be the same, just with more women CEOs. That's just a thing, not good or bad. A rather pointless goal.
It helps give them a chance they would otherwise not have.
If they are equally qualified, they will have the same chance at the job. Artificially favoring them is sexist, which is wrong.
You're assuming no gender bias is present when selecting a CEO, something I find implausible.
You realize you are saying that with two equally qualified individuals, if one is a women she will be the better choice because she is a women.
Having more women CEOs won't make society better like you are implying. It will be the same, just with more women CEOs. That's just a thing, not good or bad. A rather pointless goal.
It helps give them a chance they would otherwise not have.
If they are equally qualified, they will have the same chance at the job. Artificially favoring them is sexist, which is wrong.
You're assuming no gender bias is present when selecting a CEO, something I find implausible.
This law forces gender bias when selecting a CEO.
I am not talking about the law, I am talking about the preferences of those who select the CEO.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/01 16:55:46
I don't know if this is the answer to it, but I know that the idea that people only get a job based on their own gumption and skills when every reliable bit of research says who you know far outweighs what you know as well as things like the 9:1 ratio shows a disconnect. If we want a system that is actually merit based, instead of pretending that it is, then a better place to start would be arguing that it should be merit based. Until we have an actual meritocracy we may have to figure out ways to create a bit of parity.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/01 16:57:08
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
You realize you are saying that with two equally qualified individuals, if one is a women she will be the better choice because she is a women.
Having more women CEOs won't make society better like you are implying. It will be the same, just with more women CEOs. That's just a thing, not good or bad. A rather pointless goal.
It helps give them a chance they would otherwise not have.
If they are equally qualified, they will have the same chance at the job. Artificially favoring them is sexist, which is wrong.
Which is exactly why laws lile this are in place; to break the cycle of sexist hiring which means men are taken on ahead of women, meaning that the entire system remains skewed against women.
Fewer women are taken on into snr management means fewer women with experience for the board. Fewer women on the board and snr management means more chance of a man picking someone like him (ie a man) ahead of an equally qualified woman, reinforcing the cycle.
Oh, wait... you meant it is somehow more sexist towards men... never mind
So, seeing "quota" and "favoring" in the mix of responses.
So, if deciding between two equally worthy applicants, would it be acceptable to choose based on increasing diversity in the workplace?
Or are we back to flipping a coin and recording that as the means of selection to be "fair"?
Specifically naming the "minority" group of the time seems to be short-term law making.
This is conjecture by me but I could swear that in North America in general, more women are gaining higher learning than men.
So by statistics alone, the population of upper management "should" become more women than men.
This short-sighted law in Germany could then promote one group over another even when it no-longer needs the benefit.
Even if my premise is completely incorrect of present conditions it potentially could become an unfair law even if intent was otherwise.
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte
OTOH, a significant factor seems to be that men are more likely to 'seek the spotlight', but I do not think that makes for a more competent CEO. It does appear that the problem would be smaller if women too would seek more attention for their work, but it is far from enough to even the gap.
Implying women simply have less potential for competence is plainly false. It is possible that slightly more men desire the top position, but that disparity is hardly large enough to matter when there's numbers like 9:1 going around.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/12/01 17:19:07
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Talizvar wrote: So, seeing "quota" and "favoring" in the mix of responses.
So, if deciding between two equally worthy applicants, would it be acceptable to choose based on increasing diversity in the workplace?
Or are we back to flipping a coin and recording that as the means of selection to be "fair"?
Specifically naming the "minority" group of the time seems to be short-term law making.
This is conjecture by me but I could swear that in North America in general, more women are gaining higher learning than men.
So by statistics alone, the population of upper management "should" become more women than men.
This short-sighted law in Germany could then promote one group over another even when it no-longer needs the benefit.
Even if my premise is completely incorrect of present conditions it potentially could become an unfair law even if intent was otherwise.
Diversity for Diversity's sake isn't a good thing though. Its just a thing that gains you nothing.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Ashiraya wrote: I think this is sad. That is, it's sad that it's so difficult for women to reach those positions that something like this has become necessary.
That said, I am not certain if a law is the best way to go about it.
If they are going to claim women are discriminated in CEO positions "because there are so few women" in those jobs, then you might as well argue that the NBA or olympic track sports dont have enough white guys and need a quota for that too.
what this is, is not a solution to anything, but indentured and systematic sexism.
its also a slap in the face to every woman who wants to get the job based on her merits, as opposed to filling a quota.
instead, what should be done is putting "sleeper applicants" or spy applicants into areas of business (ie fake applicants that represent minorities in race, sex, religion, ect) and seeing if companies still hire lesser qualified majorities
its hugely sexist to do this, its indicative of the "sexism against women, even imagined, is awful. sexism against men doesnt exist" tropes that gets pushed around to bar any discussion on the matter. Didnt take long for "white privilege" to get used to shut down conversation as well.
I may as well just use the same tactics,
this is just another example of female privilege,
Spoiler:
1. From an early age the opposite sex will be instructed never to hit me but I may not be given the same instructions. However, should I strike males I can expect not to be hit back and any social penalties that occur from my actions will actually fall on the male.
2. If I’m not smart, but pretty, I can marry and achieve the social and financial level of my husband without ever working.
3. I can produce offspring. A status which grants me an “essential” status in our species that men can never have and which can never be taken away from me even in old age.
4. Regardless of my mate value society has organized fertility clinics and social welfare programs that will allow me to have children and provide for them should I choose to reproduce without a mate or marriage.
5. I not only have the more valuable and sought after sexual identity, but I also have complete control over my reproductive choice and in many ways over the reproductive choice of the opposite sex.
6. At any time I can abandon my parental responsibilities with little or no social stigma and hand the child over to the state or abort the pregnancy. A male could never relieve himself of this burden unless I allow him to.
7. I am granted all the rights of a democracy without any of the burdens of military service.
8. At age 18 I lose the protective status of the child but retain the protective status of the female. Boys at age 18 lose the protected status of the child and become targets if they fail to gain status after that point.
9. When I marry a man with status I can take his name and become whoever he has spent years becoming. I need not do anything special to be worthy of receiving the reputation he has built. However, if I wish to keep my own name I can do so. Should my husband feel the sting of this insult I can simply call him a sexist for it.
10. People will help me more when I’m in need and I will receive no social penalty or stigma for it.
11. When I’m on a date things will be paid for me.
12. When I search for employment I can choose jobs which I think are fulfilling without concern of whether they provide a “family” wage.
13. I can discriminate against the opposite sex ruthlessly without social penalty.
14. If I marry and quit my job and enjoy a leisurely life with light housework and then later divorce I will be given half of the marital assets.
15. If I commit a crime and am convicted I will get a sentencing “discount” because of my gender. If I am very pretty it will increase my discount.
16. If I am a partner in crime with a man I will likely be charged with lesser crimes even though I committed the same crimes even if I was the ringleader.
17. I have the option to be outraged if my husband asks me if my behavior is due to PMS and later on use PMS as a successful legal defense for murdering that same husband.
18. At age 18 I will not be forced to register for Selective Service and will not be penalized for failing to do so.
19. At a time of war I will never be drafted and ripped from my employment, home, and family and forced to become a military slave.
20. My feelings are more important than men’s lives. Every precaution will be made to protect me from harassment at work. However, males will make up nearly %100 of workplace fatalities.
21. My gender controls 80% of domestic spending. We get to spend our money if we have any and we get to spend men’s money.
22. The majority of luxury apparel is designed, marketed to, and consumed by women.
23. Seven times as much jewelry will be purchased by or for me than by or for men.
24. I have a department of women’s health whereas men have no such department.
25. My gender enjoys more government spending on health than males do.
26. My gender consumes the lioness’ share of entitlement programs while men contribute the lion’s share of taxes.
27. If I rape or molest a child I can expect lighter treatment in court and afterwards receive less social stigma. What’s more, should I become pregnant, I can sue my victim for child support when he finally turns 18.
28. When I divorce my husband I will be guaranteed custody of my children unless I am deemed to be unfit. Even if my husband is “Parent of the Year” 10 years running it is unlikely he will get custody over me even if I am a mediocre parent.
29. When I divorce I can use false accusations of domestic violence, sexual molestation of the children or abuse of the children to gain advantage during court proceedings. If I am found out to be a liar I can expect to get away with it.
30. If a man calls me a slut it will probably hurt his reputation more than it hurts mine, but at any rate the damage will be small and localized. However, if I call him a child molester or claim that he raped me I can destroy him completely and the damage may be nationwide.
31. If I fail at my career I can blame the male dominated society.
32. I may have the luxury of staying home and being a housewife but if my sister’s husband does the same thing I’m likely to call him a deadbeat loser and tell her to leave him.
33. If I “choose” to join the military; the best military occupations providing the most lucrative civilian training will be reserved for me. I will be kept away from the fighting as much as possible to the point that I will be thirty times less likely to be killed in a war zone than my male counterparts. I will be given equal pay for less risk. I will never have to consider the fact that by joining the military and getting a plumb assignment I automatically forced a male out of that position and into a combat role that may cost him his life.
34. If a male soldier injures himself before a deployment he can be arrested and court marshaled for it. If I deliberately get pregnant before a deployment or even during a deployment I will be reassigned and or taken out of a war zone and I will receive no penalty for it.
35. My gender watches more television in every hour of every day than any other group. This along with the fact that women control %80 of domestic spending means that most television shows and advertisement are designed to appeal to me.
36. I can wear masculine clothing if it pleases me however men cannot wear feminine clothing without social penalty.
37. Not only is there a wealth of clothing choices designed for me but it is likely that I will be able to afford or have them provided for me.
38. I can claim that a wage gap exists and that it is the fault of sexism while simultaneously seeking employment without considering income as a priority. I will probably choose my job based on satisfaction, flexibility of hours, and working conditions and then expect to make as much as the males working nights, out in the rain and cold or working overtime.
39. I can be bigoted or sexist against males without social penalty.
40. If I make a false claim of rape against a male in an act of revenge or in order to cover up my own scandalous behavior I may well succeed at both and he may spend years in prison. If I am found out it is unlikely I will be charged, convicted, or serve any time at all.
41. If I abuse my husband and physically assault him and the police arrive it is almost guaranteed he will go to jail.
42. If I am in an abusive relationship there are a multitude of social organizations to help me get away from him. There are few for men in the same position even though women initiate the majority of DV and even though men are hospitalized %30 of the time.
43. In the event of a natural disaster or other emergency that requires evacuation I can expect to be evacuated before males. This includes male doctors, humanitarians, politicians, captains of industry, billionaires, and religious leaders. I will receive no social penalty if all of those people died because I was evacuated first. However, should they manage to get evacuated before women and those women died they will all suffer a social penalty.
44. If someone is attacking a person on the street I have no obligation to assist them and I will receive no social penalty if I do nothing.
45. If someone is harming my children and I run away and ask someone else to help I will receive no social penalty for my cowardice.
46. I’m immune to cognitive dissonance.
47. I may denounce the concept of a dowry, however, I still expect a man to give me an engagement ring when he asks me to marry him.
48. I expect a man to ask me to marry me and suffer the potential risk of rejection.
49. If I lie it’s because I’m a victim of a male dominated society forced into difficult circumstances and not because I’m a bad person.
50. If my boyfriend sabotages a condom he can pay me child support for the next 20 years. If I secretly don’t take my birth control my boyfriend can pay me child support for the next 20 years.
51. If I’m uncomfortable exercising around men I can demand a female only gym be made for women. If any male only gyms exist I can demand membership under threat of lawsuit.
52. If my female only gym at the university decides to close early for safety reasons I can scream sexism and force them to keep it open as long as the main gym.
53. If I succeed at keeping the female gym open and I leave late at night and I don’t feel safe I can demand that the university spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for more lighting and police presence.
54. If after getting new lighting and police protection I decide I don’t want to go to the gym anymore well that’s just my prerogative.
55. I’m likely to believe that if a woman is intoxicated she is not capable of giving consent and if sex occurs it is rape. However, if her male partner is also intoxicated he is capable of consenting.
56. If a man is promoted over me at work I have a right to suspect sexism even though I also believe that under adverse circumstances men are more capable than women of making good decisions. (see #55)
57. I can cry and get my husband to do something for me that he might not have done otherwise.
58. I expect people (especially men) to be sensitive to my feelings.
59. I can deny a man’s feelings or disregard them or ridicule him for having them without social penalty.
60. If I lose my job it’s because of sexism or the economy. If a man loses his job it’s because he’s a loser.
61. If I go to a club or bar with my girlfriends and I look my sexy best I have a right to be perturbed when men approach me and hit on me in this public place.
62. Even though men die more from prostate cancer than women die from breast cancer I can expect that twice as much funding is given for breast cancer. The same will apply to any female specific disease or malady.
63. If for some reason I do not get custody of my children I will be expected to pay less child support than another man in my exact same position.
64. If I kidnap my children and I am eventually caught I can successfully defend myself by claiming I was protecting them from my husband–even if my children were given to him to protect them from me.
65. My gender makes up %53 of the voting population yet when I see more men in political office I will call that sexism.
66. If I am married with children and I want to stay home with the kids I’m likely to blame my husband for not making enough to allow me to do that.
67. I think it is my right to work and I am unconcerned if the influx of women into the workforce has reduced overall wages to the point that it’s hard to support a family on just one income, or affirmative action has kept men from being promoted even though they deserved it.
68. I can get student financial aid without signing up for Selective Service (the Draft).
69. I can get employment with a federal agency without signing up for Selective Service.
70. Restrooms for my gender will be cleaner and are more likely to have flowers or other decorations.
71. If I’m caring for a child restrooms for my gender will more likely have a changing table for my convenience.
72. People I’ve never met before are more likely to open doors for me.
73. People I’ve never met before are more likely to talk to me in public.
74. If I go to a bar I can expect that members of the opposite sex will purchase drinks for me.
75. Anytime I find an organization just for men I can denounce it as sexism.
76. I believe that women should have organizations just for women.
77. If I meet a man that I like and I give him my phone number and he doesn’t call I have a right to think of him as an donkey-cave.
78. If I meet a man that I like and I give him my phone number and he calls me I have a right to blow him off or act like I don’t know him.
79. I believe I have a right to live in an orderly and safe society but I feel no obligation to risk my safety to secure or maintain that society.
80. I like it when bars and clubs have drinks specials just for women.
81. I think that organizations that offer any discounts or privileges just for men is a clear sign of sexism.
82. If I’m white I will live 6 years longer than white males and 14 years longer than black males.
83. If I’m encouraged to get medical care it’s because I owe it to myself.
84. When my husband is encouraged to get medical help it’s because he owes to to me and the kids.
85. If something bad happens to me or just one woman I believe it is an offense against all women.
86. I believe that if something bad happens to a man it’s because he’s a loser.
87. I think that alimony is fair when paid to a woman but not fair when paid by a woman.
88. I’m more likely to believe that women who commit crimes are sick and need treatment or understanding whereas men who commit crimes are evil and should be locked up forever.
89. I can criticize the opposite sex without social penalty, but woe be to the man who attempts to criticize me or other women.
90. I can throw a fit and act like a two year old to get what I want without damaging my mate value.
91. I have the luxury of not being the filter for natural selection.
92. I can sleep with my boss if I want and afterwards I can sue him for sexual harassment.
93. I can wear seductive clothing and perfume to attract a man at work but no one will accuse me of sexual harassment.
94. If I hear a story about Darfur and how men who leave the refugee camps to gather wood are hacked to death to prevent their wives from being raped I am likely to think that is proper but not likely to send money.
95. If I hear a story about Darfur and how women are leaving the refugee camps to gather wood are being raped I’m likely to be outraged. I’m also likely to wonder why these women’s husbands aren’t protecting them.
96. If I ever heard these stories about Darfur it is my privilege not to care or even consider that the reason the second story exists is because all the men in the first have already been killed.
97. It is my right to maintain the belief that men oppress women despite all of the evidence to the contrary.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/01 17:27:44
Grey Templar wrote: Diversity for Diversity's sake isn't a good thing though. Its just a thing that gains you nothing.
I would reply that if it does not hurt to do so, adding different ways of looking at things to the business is worth pursuing.
Combatting "groupthink" is helpful for the flexibility of a business.
Like these forums, I have never learned anything from those who agree with me.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/01 17:22:08
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte
Just like hiring any new member of staff, it takes time to learn the company and the role. A well put together team is always on the lookout for new talent to take on and shape. Here a less experienced candidate may prove a better fit.
You realize you are saying that with two equally qualified individuals, if one is a women she will be the better choice because she is a women.
Having more women CEOs won't make society better like you are implying. It will be the same, just with more women CEOs. That's just a thing, not good or bad. A rather pointless goal.
It helps give them a chance they would otherwise not have.
If they are equally qualified, they will have the same chance at the job. Artificially favoring them is sexist, which is wrong.
You're assuming no gender bias is present when selecting a CEO, something I find implausible.
This law forces gender bias when selecting a CEO.
I am not talking about the law, I am talking about the preferences of those who select the CEO.
I know.
What you are talking about is a group of people that personally have preferences about who they select as a CEO.
What I'm talking about is the law forcing a group of people to prefer certain people to select as a CEO.
Grey Templar wrote: Diversity for Diversity's sake isn't a good thing though. Its just a thing that gains you nothing.
I would reply that if it does not hurt to do so, adding different ways of looking at things to the business is worth pursuing.
Combatting "groupthink" is helpful for the flexibility of a business.
Like these forums, I have never learned anything from those who agree with me.
But that is something that only the business can decide for itself. The government shouldn't be involved. They might as well just hire people for you at that point.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
You realize you are saying that with two equally qualified individuals, if one is a women she will be the better choice because she is a women.
Having more women CEOs won't make society better like you are implying. It will be the same, just with more women CEOs. That's just a thing, not good or bad. A rather pointless goal.
It helps give them a chance they would otherwise not have.
If they are equally qualified, they will have the same chance at the job. Artificially favoring them is sexist, which is wrong.
You're assuming no gender bias is present when selecting a CEO, something I find implausible.
This law forces gender bias when selecting a CEO.
I am not talking about the law, I am talking about the preferences of those who select the CEO.
I know.
What you are talking about is a group of people that personally have preferences about who they select as a CEO.
What I'm talking about is the law forcing a group of people to prefer certain people to select as a CEO.
It doesn't force them to prefer, it forces them to include a certain amount of people of a certain group at all.
What I am talking about is a group of people who'd rather have few to none of that group.
You realize you are saying that with two equally qualified individuals, if one is a women she will be the better choice because she is a women.
Having more women CEOs won't make society better like you are implying. It will be the same, just with more women CEOs. That's just a thing, not good or bad. A rather pointless goal.
It helps give them a chance they would otherwise not have.
If they are equally qualified, they will have the same chance at the job. Artificially favoring them is sexist, which is wrong.
You're assuming no gender bias is present when selecting a CEO, something I find implausible.
This law forces gender bias when selecting a CEO.
I am not talking about the law, I am talking about the preferences of those who select the CEO.
I know.
What you are talking about is a group of people that personally have preferences about who they select as a CEO.
What I'm talking about is the law forcing a group of people to prefer certain people to select as a CEO.
It doesn't force them to prefer, it forces them to include a certain amount of people of a certain group at all.
What I am talking about is a group of people who'd rather have few to none of that group.
So, because of this group of people, everyone should be forced to include a certain amount of people from a certain group, whether there's people more fit for the job or not?
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Again, you are assuming there is active descrimination. When the more likely explaination is that there are way way less qualified female applicants.
That ''problem'' is making more qualified female applicants. But we know for a fact that women lead men in education level. Thus women clearly choose to favor certain fields over others. That's not a problem at all.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
What I am talking about is a group of people who'd rather have few to none of that group.
which is based on the assumption that its still a "good ole boys club" and that the HR people are all sexist.
just because a lot more men are CEOs, does not in fact mean its sexist. The facts are, that fewer women apply, and there are fewer qualified women. TO get a legit surge in female CEOs, females to have a legit surge in applying for those positions and being educated for them, not to have the positions earmarked for them and given to them, regardless of qualifications, simply because they are women.
Immediately playing the sexist card just because the #'s are not what you personally want is what is sexist, so is legalizing discriminatory, sexist, hiring practices such as quotas.
You wouldnt be ok with a "white" quota in black dominated sports, or a male quota in female dominated professions, or a male quota for stay at home parenting, yet you are totally fine applying the exact same sexism in reverse.
its sexist and an affront to women to even contemplate giving them jobs because they are women as opposed the them getting them based on merit as they currently do.
or, to use your male/white privileged shaming tactics ,
its due to female privilege that the #'s are so skewed,
namely these female privileges, many of which you are enjoying in this very thread!
12. When I search for employment I can choose jobs which I think are fulfilling without concern of whether they provide a “family” wage.
31. If I fail at my career I can blame the male dominated society.
32. I may have the luxury of staying home and being a housewife but if my sister’s husband does the same thing I’m likely to call him a deadbeat loser and tell her to leave him.
39. I can be bigoted or sexist against males without social penalty.
55. I’m likely to believe that if a woman is intoxicated she is not capable of giving consent and if sex occurs it is rape. However, if her male partner is also intoxicated he is capable of consenting.
56. If a man is promoted over me at work I have a right to suspect sexism even though I also believe that under adverse circumstances men are more capable than women of making good decisions. (see #55)
60. If I lose my job it’s because of sexism or the economy. If a man loses his job it’s because he’s a loser.
65. My gender makes up %53 of the voting population yet when I see more men in political office I will call that sexism.
75. Anytime I find an organization just for men I can denounce it as sexism.
76. I believe that women should have organizations just for women.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/12/01 18:32:27
Why are people talking about this as if it was somehow dubious or unclear? It may be partially subconscious, passive and/or without even noticing it, but of course there is discrimination.
I am getting a bit worried by people still questioning this by now. How many more sources must I find? Two? Five? Fifty?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/01 18:30:50
Why are people talking about this as if it was somehow dubious or unclear? It may be partially subconscious, passive and/or without even noticing it, but of course there is discrimination.
I am getting a bit worried by people still questioning this by now. How many more sources must I find? Two? Five? Fifty?
those "sources" are anecdotal at best, and again, dont even address simple facts like there are far fewer female qualified applicants
They contain links to various studies and references. I mean, I wouldn't go to court with this, but come on, you guys haven't even produced fanfiction as your own sources yet.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/12/01 19:00:02
easysauce wrote: there are far fewer female qualified applicants
Source?
I provided those earlier, from much more legitimate sources than those articles you provided.
Fewer women pursuing degrees in fields that traditionally earn a higher income ---> Fewer women qualified in fields that traditionally earn a higher income ---> fewer women hired in fields that traditionally earn a higher income.
Prestor Jon wrote: Because children don't have any legal rights until they're adults. A minor is the responsiblity of the parent and has no legal rights except through his/her legal guardian or parent.
easysauce wrote: there are far fewer female qualified applicants
Source?
I provided those earlier, from much more legitimate sources than those articles you provided.
Fewer women pursuing degrees in fields that traditionally earn a higher income ---> Fewer women qualified in fields that traditionally earn a higher income ---> fewer women hired in fields that traditionally earn a higher income.
Pretty simple, really.
Yours are equally legitimate but they do not refute anything said by mine. Yes, women tend to choose different professions - but this disparity is nowhere near enough to explain the extreme CEO ratio.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/12/01 19:08:09
easysauce wrote: there are far fewer female qualified applicants
Source?
I provided those earlier, from much more legitimate sources than those articles you provided.
Fewer women pursuing degrees in fields that traditionally earn a higher income ---> Fewer women qualified in fields that traditionally earn a higher income ---> fewer women hired in fields that traditionally earn a higher income.
Pretty simple, really.
Yours are equally legitimate but they do not refute anything said by mine. Yes, women tend to choose different professions - but this disparity is nowhere near enough to explain the extreme CEO ratio.
Actually it is. The extreme narrowing of the field exaggerates differences.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
easysauce wrote: there are far fewer female qualified applicants
Source?
I provided those earlier, from much more legitimate sources than those articles you provided.
Fewer women pursuing degrees in fields that traditionally earn a higher income ---> Fewer women qualified in fields that traditionally earn a higher income ---> fewer women hired in fields that traditionally earn a higher income.
Pretty simple, really.
Yours are equally legitimate but they do not refute anything said by mine. Yes, women tend to choose different professions - but this disparity is nowhere near enough to explain the extreme CEO ratio.
Actually it is. The extreme narrowing of the field exaggerates differences.
The gap in perception is the same across all age groups. While older men acknowledge that there are some inequalities, only 68 percent “strongly agree” or “agree” that despite equal skills and qualifications, women face more challenges when progressing to top management roles. This compares to a response rate of 93 percent from their female counterparts.
easysauce wrote: there are far fewer female qualified applicants
Source?
in general, woman apply to certain jobs more then others, keep in mind, fewer women participate in the workforce at all as well.
here are % of women in professions,
notice that women make up the vast majority in some professions, and the minority in others?
either certain industries are super sexist towards men and woman, and evil HR reps in blue sectors are discriminating against women, while pink sector HR reps discriminate against men, or men and women apply for different jobs in general.
Spoiler:
this is tech specific, outlining actual qualifications earned by gender in the tech specific sector.
Spoiler:
and here is applications, again, look at computer sciences, only ~16% of applicants for post secondary were women, and women simply do not apply for any the engineering professions as much as men do.
Spoiler:
notice how womens interest in, and training is significantly less in these areas, in accordance with them holding less top positions in these areas?
I am 100% behind more women in "blue" jobs, but women have to actually want these jobs, apply for them, and train for them to get them, and they simply are choosing not to do that and go for other "pink" jobs instead.
but when women in general simply dont choose to go for certain jobs, sexist laws wont help that.
Passing a quota is lazy, sexist, and a step back for women everywhere.
men and woman apply for very different types of job in general, to complain that only 14% of ceos are women in a feild where its mostly men applying themselves to that feild, and that a 30% mandatory minimum should be put on women in CEo positions
Is just as ludicrous as if someone stated "only 8% of workplace fatalities are women? ok, 30% of all dangerous deadly work *HAS* to be done by women now, obviously sexism is why women are not getting hired for these dangerous jobs"
Spoiler:
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/12/01 19:28:54
Jobs should be selected on qualifications, I know you'd say its flawed or such but this runs a risk somewhat. But done right its fair, regardless of race or sex, the best candidate wins.
Some less happy companies may hire them as per law and just give then minor token roles compared to other board members in practice of every day running of things. People find loopholes.
Putting them on the board to some may not change as much as they think.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
